No video :(

Class 1: Uncertainty & Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

William M Briggs : Statistician to the Stars!

Подписаться 1,5 тыс.

Просмотров 2,1 тыс.

50% 1

Lesson 1: Logic. We start with Chapter 1 of ET Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science", and discover logic is both easier and harder than we thought.
All questions will be answered in the following Monday's lecture.
Written lecture: www.wmbriggs.c...
Permanent class page: www.wmbriggs.c...

Опубликовано:

29 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 29

@clazy8 4 месяца назад

If Briggs continues this series, then I will buy his book.

@lzantal 4 месяца назад

This channel is so underrated and undersubscribed.

@mjstap 4 месяца назад

So glad to see someone cover Jaynes's "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science" was a critical book in evolving my thinking in my research.

@mattphillips538 3 месяца назад

What is the topic of your research?

@kenelder5146 4 месяца назад

Excellent.....I love stat and look forward to being a regular viewer. I almost felt like you were in my living room which adds to the absorption!

@KilgoreTroutAsf 2 месяца назад

I watched part 8 ant it was fantastic. I'm gonna listen to the entire series from start to end.

@WMB 2 месяца назад

Thanks.

@JoshLeighTeamV 4 месяца назад

Kudos and thank you. Please keep it up!

@belesiu 2 месяца назад

Good video; just stumbled onto this. Looking forward to the rest of the series.

@n20games52 2 месяца назад

Very much enjoyed the video. I look forward to the rest of the series.

@mikesymth7243 4 месяца назад

please don't de-emphasize math. I love the math part.

@EdoardoMarcora 4 месяца назад

Looking forward

@BigParadox 2 месяца назад

If you are a teacher then you teach, be it on RU-vid or elsewhere!

@kemijarks 3 месяца назад

I like this !!! keep going sir

@bejn5619 4 месяца назад

Please don’t stop.

@ihibthegreat5343 2 месяца назад

Is it assumed that the set W is finite? Because if its infinite removing a single premise does not increase plausibility since W would remain infinite.

@123sensu 4 месяца назад

Good start. at the 18 minute mark are you saying that A is more plausible/likely "than it was before" or that it's somehow more likely than C, D, or E? I assume the former but it wasn't clear (to me). Looking forward to Class 2.

@JamesJoyceJazz 4 месяца назад

I think he's saying that it's more likely than the other propositions that do not include B as one of their implications. So it's not more likely than C, D or E (at least with the amount of information we have) just more likely than a whole infinity of other proprositions that do not include B as one of their implications.

@repsaknivek 2 месяца назад

Example: A = You were wearing that shirt in the rain just now. B = that shirt is wet. C = if you fall off the table it will hurt. D = If a nail punctures your car tire the tire will deflate. E= that shirt is in the washing machine being washed. A, B, C, D, E are all part of the universe of propositions. The fact that B is true right now provides us new information for us to believe that A may be true. So our belief that A may be true is now greater that it was before. It also means that we can believe more strongly than before we knew B is true that E is true. So both A and E are now plausible. Plausible = We cannot rule this out yet.

@psychnstatstutor 4 месяца назад

Liking the use of blackboard and chalk~ and homework 😅 Logic as "trivial" 🤣

@JTan-fq6vy Месяц назад

Thanks for the great video! I am confused on 21:32 when discussing about logic vs causality. Especially, why we can build logic based on causality but not another way around? Is it because the premise we use for logic is subjective (assumed) but causality is indeed objective?

@WMB Месяц назад

I think you might mean the ontology (causes operating) with epistemology (our knowledge or uncertainty in the causes operating). That is the key distinction.

@yonason6047 2 месяца назад

If A is true, B must be true by definition. If A is false, B could be either true or false If B is true, A could be true or false If B is false, A must be false, because A can’t (by definition) be true without B being true.

@yonason6047 2 месяца назад

I guess if B is true, then A must be “more plausible” (more likely to be true when A is true, then not) because if when B is false A must be false, there are fewer ways for A to be false than not?..

@willthecat3861 16 дней назад

We want "If A is true that B is 'necessarily true" We want that so that we can do a kind of logical reasoning... which works by chaining together those kind of phrases. So as you say... we say that "if A then B" is always true whenever it obtains that A is true, and B is true. (There are kinds of subtle 'connections' between A and B, which the logic mostly leaves out.) The all, and only, time we say that "if A then B" is false is when A is true, and it obtains that B is false. In all the other cases, for truth assignments of A and B, "if A then B" will be true. What about when A is false and B is false specifically, or particularly,? Since, "A is false" and "B is false" is one of the "other cases" then "if A then B' is true.